4 ms·

Pretty heavily editorialized headline, not at all in the economists style. Original title: Facebook's “free internet” programme hits a roadblock in India

ipsin 11y ago
Doesn't seem that editorialized. The "roadblock" is the feedback from critics, and the Economist's subhead is "Critics argue Mark Zuckerberg’s generosity is a cover for a land-grab".
- such_a_casual 11y ago
  There is a significant difference between a headline that reads, "Facebook's “free internet” programme is a cover for a land-grab" and "Critics say Facebook's “free internet” programme is a cover for a land-grab". But both titles are sensational click-bait.
- ipsin 11y ago
  I agree with you (such_a_casual). I think my judgement was skewed because I'm one of those critics.
- tptacek 11y ago
  It's extraordinarily editorialized, because it implies that the author of the article agrees with one quoted source in the article.
  - thieving_magpie 11y ago
    One quoted source that they turned into the subheading, in larger dark grey print. Seems fair game to me.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      It's not fair game. The site guidelines specifically demand that submitters not do this exact thing; instead, you're to use the article's original headline, unless it's misleading or linkbait. People who submit stories don't own the stories on HN; stories are community property. Being the first to submit a URL does not give someone special privileges to reframe the story for everyone else. In this case, the reframing that was done was overtly dishonest, implying as it does that The Economist endorses this point of view, which it clearly does not.
      - thieving_magpie 11y ago
        I see what you're saying, I was wrong about using the subheading for the title instead of the title. Your statement that the OP was "overtly dishonest" is ridiculous, come on.
dang 11y ago
Right, the submitted title ("Facebook's “free internet” programme is a cover for a land-grab") broke the HN guidelines by editorializing. That's bad. Submitters: please don't change titles unless they are misleading or linkbait (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). If you want to present an argument, do so in the thread, on a level playing field with other users. On HN, submitting an article confers no special right to opine. The subtitle ("Critics argue") would have been ok, but is less informative, and there's nothing wrong with the article's main headline, so we've put that in above.

ipsin 11y ago

Doesn't seem that editorialized. The "roadblock" is the feedback from critics, and the Economist's subhead is "Critics argue Mark Zuckerberg’s generosity is a cover for a land-grab".

such_a_casual 11y ago
There is a significant difference between a headline that reads, "Facebook's “free internet” programme is a cover for a land-grab" and "Critics say Facebook's “free internet” programme is a cover for a land-grab". But both titles are sensational click-bait.
ipsin 11y ago
I agree with you (such_a_casual). I think my judgement was skewed because I'm one of those critics.
tptacek 11y ago
It's extraordinarily editorialized, because it implies that the author of the article agrees with one quoted source in the article.
- thieving_magpie 11y ago
  One quoted source that they turned into the subheading, in larger dark grey print. Seems fair game to me.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    It's not fair game. The site guidelines specifically demand that submitters not do this exact thing; instead, you're to use the article's original headline, unless it's misleading or linkbait. People who submit stories don't own the stories on HN; stories are community property. Being the first to submit a URL does not give someone special privileges to reframe the story for everyone else. In this case, the reframing that was done was overtly dishonest, implying as it does that The Economist endorses this point of view, which it clearly does not.
    - thieving_magpie 11y ago
      I see what you're saying, I was wrong about using the subheading for the title instead of the title. Your statement that the OP was "overtly dishonest" is ridiculous, come on.

dang 11y ago

Right, the submitted title ("Facebook's “free internet” programme is a cover for a land-grab") broke the HN guidelines by editorializing. That's bad. Submitters: please don't change titles unless they are misleading or linkbait (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). If you want to present an argument, do so in the thread, on a level playing field with other users. On HN, submitting an article confers no special right to opine. The subtitle ("Critics argue") would have been ok, but is less informative, and there's nothing wrong with the article's main headline, so we've put that in above.